Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar vs The State on 3 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-03, NORTH, DELHI.
Crl. Rev. No. 38/2010
C.C. No.: 721/1/09
P.S.: Subzi Mandi
U/s: 156 (3) Cr.P.C. r/w section 200 Cr. P.C.
Concerned Court/ Successor Court:
Sh. Tarun Yogesh, Ld. M.M., Delhi
Case ID No.02401R0280202010
In the matter of:
Raj Kumar
S/o late Sh. Chande Lal
R/o 366, Gali Robin Cinema,
Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
..............Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State
Through PP of NCT of Delhi.
2. Uma Shankar
S/o Krishan Chand
3. Smt. Sushila
W/o Uma Shankar
4. Ashish Goel
S/o Uma Shankar
5. Ravi Shankar Goel
S/o Sh. Krishan Chand
All R/o 3264, Aryapura,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
6. Balbir Singh
S/o Sh. Surender Singh
Crl. Rev. No. 38/2010 1/6
R/o Ram Nagar, Thana Puranpur,
Pilibhit, UP.
7. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Avtar
R/o Mohalla Kayasthan,
P.O. Kotwali Puranpur,
Pilibhit, UP.
8. Sanjay Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Aggarwal
R/o Mohalla Nai Basti, Thana Sunngarhi,
Pilibhit, UP.
9. Ramphal
Working as SI or ASI in Delhi Police
Presently posted at PS Subzi Mandi,
Delhi.
10. Dalel Singh
Working as HC in Delhi Police
Presently posted at PS Subzi Mandi,
Delhi.
11. Hem Singh
Working as SI in UP. Police
Presently posted at PS Puranpur,
Distt. Pilibhit, UP.
12. Mahender Singh
Working as SI in UP. Police
Presently posted at PS Puranpur,
Distt. Pilibhit, UP.
13. Mr. Chander Arora,
Shop owner of property
No. 315, Main Bazar, Old Subzi Mandi,
Delhi.
............Respondents
ORDER
1. This revision takes exception to the order dated 11.05.2010 Crl. Rev. No. 38/2010 2/6 passed by Ld. MM whereby Ld. MM declined to take cognizance of the offence on the application U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C filed by the petitioner and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.
2. Facts giving rise to the present revision are that petitioner/complainant filed the complaint in the trial court U/s 200 Cr.P.C along with application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C against respondent no.2 to 13 on the ground that petitioner is running a grocery shop No. 315, Main Bazar, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi and the respondent no.13 stated to be the owner of the said shop which had been let out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- per month. Petitioner started Dhaba therein but due to continuous trouble caused by local police at the instance of respondent no.13 and his family members, petitioner used that shop as a General Grocery Store. Respondent no.2 to 5 are indulged in manufacturing, selling, packaging and trading of adulterated and polluted spices regarding which he made complaint to the concerned officials but in vain and they continued in the unlawful activities. It is stated that respondent 8 is the real nephew (bhanja) of respondent no.2 and respondent no.7 Rajesh Kumar being an Advocate by profession joined hands with respondent no.9 to 12 i.e. local police officials of police station Subzi Mandi and police of Rampur Pilibhit UP got registered a false case against the petitioner vide FIR No. 288/09 and case No. 2561/09 u/s 420/406 IPC and cooked up a false story of cheating of Rs. 2 lacs by the petitioner. Respondent no. 6 to 8, 11 and 12 hatched a criminal conspiracy with respondent no. 9 and 10 came at Delhi to the house of petitioner and knocked the door of his house and on opening of the door by the petitioner, all the aforesaid persons dragged the petitioner out of his Crl. Rev. No. 38/2010 3/6 house and brought to police station Subzi Mandi where the respondent no. 9 and 10 misbehaved with the petitioner and they gave severe beatings to him. Thereafter they put the petitioner in a vehicle and took the petitioner to Pilibhit in UP where he was kept in judicial custody from 23.5.2009 till 30.7.2009 . Thereafter he was released on bail upon the bail order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 29.7.2009. Thereafter petitioner gave a legal notice u/s 140 D.P. Act to respondent no. 9 and 10, 11 and 12 which were duly served upon them but the same was replied vaguely by respondent no.9 and 10. The petitioner was kidnapped and had been beaten in conspiracy hatched by the respondents at Delhi. Hence, petitioner filed a complaint along with application U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. for registration of the case against the respondents but Ld. MM vide order dated 11.5.2010 dismissed the same. It is against this impugned order dated 11.5.2010 that the present revision has been filed.
3. After filing of the revision, trial court record was summoned.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and have carefully perused the record.
5. After filing of the complaint, action taken report was called by the Ld. MM from the concerned Police Station. The petitioner filed the present complaint u/s 176/191/192/193/197/198/199/203/206/323/324/ 342/366/3/84/392/452 IPC. Ld. MM has rightly held that so far as the offence under Chapter XI IPC are concerned, then no cognizance can be taken except on the complaint in writing of the court concerned where the false evidence is produced or by such officer of the court as that court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some court to which that court is subordinate. Ld. MM has further rightly held that since it is a Crl. Rev. No. 38/2010 4/6 private complaint of the petitioner, therefore, the allegations for the offence under Chapter XI IPC can not be entertained upon private complaint. As per petitioner's own case, he is facing trial in FIR No. 288/09 at police station Pilibhit. Alongwith action taken report, the concerned police station has also filed DDs which shows the arrival and departure of police officials of police station Pilibhit and the police officials from Pilibhit have arrested the petitioner in the matter pending at police station Pilibhit. Thus, the police officials in discharge of their duties arrested the petitioner and took him to Pilibhit, UP.
6. Perusal of record shows that alongwith action taken report all the DDs have been duly annexed by the concerned police station which show the arrival and departure of the police officials from police station Pilibhit have been duly recorded in the police station. From the record it is also clear that civil case between the parties i.e. Chander Arora Etc is also pending wherein the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC already stands dismissed by the trial court and respondent no.13 has made a complaint to the concerned SHO against the petitioner regarding the unlawful trespass into his shop and despite the dismissal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, petitioner threatened him and asked him to give Rs. 2 lacs to vacate the shop. Ld. MM has rightly held that the allegations against the accused that they have arrested the petitioner in FIR No. 288/09 Police Station Pilibhit does not amount to offence as alleged in the complaint. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the Ld. MM.
7. In view of the abovesaid discussions, the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by Ld. MM is upheld. Present revision petition filed by Crl. Rev. No. 38/2010 5/6 the petitioners is dismissed. Trial Court Record along with copy of this order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge-3 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court on 03.8.2010.
Crl. Rev. No. 38/2010 6/6